I own everything. Ok, not quite, but everything since the switch to Pathfinder to be sure.
From my perspective, anything they quick reference should be in the PRD. How much or how little gets put into the PRD is up to Paizo. But I don't begrudge people having free access to info I paid for. I paid for a printed book, a laid out PDF, graphics, and all sorts of other goodies that aren't on the PRD.
In my experience the PRD sells more books than the reverse. I mean, the SRD for D&D was out for years, and the core rules still sold like hotcakes.
As long as Paizo keeps putting out high quality stuff, I will support them by buying their products.
|
This is exactly the kind of remark that starts flame wars.
First, you're essentially calling the people who like what you don't lazy. Second, your label could just as easily be applied to people who want newer content in the AP. After all, can't those people "lift a finger" to add that content?
Disappointing. And this thread had been going so well...
Yeah, it frustrates me, because the main reason I'm against adding new content without printing relevant rules is due to the fact that I'm worried it will be a problem for people new to the system, as it will require a larger and larger initial investment and become an obstacle.
In other words, I want Paizo to do well, so I'm concerned.
And yet, because I'm worried about a company being successful in the future that I have no direct stake it, I get called a lazy GM.
For what its worth, here's a link to my blog where I discuss what I do to prep for a session:
Also, I'm getting a bit frustrated when people that are for including new content without the relevant rules reprinted continue to phrase this as a choice between "only Core rulebook and Bestiary" or "new material," when many of us have said we want new material, just new material that can be used out of the book.
I've been really respectful of the opposing view. I understand that the guys at Paizo work really hard, and it would help them to be able to cut the references down. I understand this isn't because they will be doing less work, overall, but it will make the AP volume a bit more manageable. I think I've been pretty clear that I respect them and understand the desire to go this route and what the benefit is.
I understand people that want more new content, and believe they will get more content without reprinting relevant rules. More adventure content is good, I'll not deny.
I also understand that this is Paizo's decision to do what is good for their business. As a fan, and someone that is trying to picture this from a newcomers point of view, I'm just concerned that it might be a mistake. That's all I'm trying to say.
KEJR,
The difficulty in communication appears to be what 'new content' means. You seem to be usng it to mean 'something not in the PRPG or Bestiary 1'. I'm using it as 'something that is in this adventure and not elsewhere'. So what you're calling new stuff isn't what we mean by new stuff.As an example, the Haunting of Harrowstone uses two monsters from Bestiary 2 in reference only notation. Given that most stat blocks, with special abilities, take up about half a page in an adventure, that means that to include them so they can be played straight out of the box would require one page of the adventure to be removed to make space. That's quite a task given what's been noted by Paizo in the past about how hard it is to get the adventures under word count as it is. A page is at least one detailed encounter or several room's descrption if not. And that's with just two monsters, a high level class with all its unique abilities could easily eat up a page all on its own.
What we on the 'if it's in the PRD, then it's fair game' side are sayng is that reprinting statblocks takes up a lot of space that would be better served by printing an awesome encounter. I understand your concerns about making it tougher to get into if this is done, but I find the alternatives to boil down to either a) reduce the effective length of the adventure to include only stuff from anything but the core books or b) don't use anything but the core books and keep the effective adventure length the same. And I don't see how either of those options is better than c) point to the free online resource that features the stats you need. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's a better one than either of the others.
I should also point out that at the moment, Bestiary 2 isn't on the PRD, and I think that it's a mistake to use those monsters without that sort of availability.
KEJR,
The difficulty in communication appears to be what 'new content' means. You seem to be usng it to mean 'something not in the PRPG or Bestiary 1'. I'm using it as 'something that is in this adventure and not elsewhere'. So what you're calling new stuff isn't what we mean by new stuff.As an example, the Haunting of Harrowstone uses two monsters from Bestiary 2 in reference only notation. Given that most stat blocks, with special abilities, take up about half a page in an adventure, that means that to include them so they can be played straight out of the box would require one page of the adventure to be removed to make space. That's quite a task given what's been noted by Paizo in the past about how hard it is to get the adventures under word count as it is. A page is at least one detailed encounter or several room's descrption if not. And that's with just two monsters, a high level class with all its unique abilities could easily eat up a page all on its own.
What we on the 'if it's in the PRD, then it's fair game' side are sayng is that reprinting statblocks takes up a lot of space that would be better served by printing an awesome encounter. I understand your concerns about making it tougher to get into if this is done, but I find the alternatives to boil down to either a) reduce the effective length of the adventure to include only stuff from anything but the core books or b) don't use anything but the core books and keep the effective adventure length the same. And I don't see how either of those options is better than c) point to the free online resource that features the stats you need. It's not an ideal solution, but I think it's a better one than either of the others.
I should also point out that at the moment, Bestiary 2 isn't on the PRD, and I think that it's a mistake to use those monsters without that sort of availability.
You make a good point, and I will certainly concede that I may have missed the connotations of "new" in some of the posts that I have read. I also appreciate that it's not a easy choice. I must admit, I've been more frustrated by some very ardent fans responding than I have been by James' comments, which I understand even if I don't 100% agree with.
Thanks for taking the time to throw that out there.
I like the idea of using all sorts of stuff in the APs. Perhaps there could be suggestions on replacements if you don't have the books?
(If you don't have Bestiary 2, use ___ from The Bestiary instead. If you don't have the Advanced Player's Guide, use the ___ feat from the Core Rulebook instead. Etc.)
Here's a strange idea:
The GMG and other Paizo sources have preached the gospel of stat-block re-use. Perhaps when they use a page reference to something that's considered "too new" or what have you, they could include a parenthetical notation of a Bestiary v1 statblock that would work pretty well in its place?
That's a suggestion in the spirit of compromise. Personally, I hope Paizo will just continue with their existing standards for class inclusion (use sparingly), and all monsters are fair game. Monsters are fair game because as a GM I am quite capable of "faking" a statblock like I mentioned above, and although a parenthetical suggestion for an ideal fake would be nice, I don't require such a thing.
I should also point out that at the moment, Bestiary 2 isn't on the PRD, and I think that it's a mistake to use those monsters without that sort of availability.
Totally agree. The fact that the stats are available on the PRD is the only reason why just using a notation isn't unacceptable. If you're going to just make a notation in an AP, then it bloody well better be on the PRD.
Great discussion. As long as the people who are advocating for notations-only are not the same people who rah-rahed the abysmal waste of space that was the iconics, then we're good. Otherwise...
I'm sorry, that that didn't come across as what it was originally meant to say. I certainly didn't mean to offend the last two posters.
As I said, I copied that from another post, and was a reply - if I remember it right - to someone who said that they don't want to buy any more books and "can't be arsed" to look it up for free on the internet.
I should have removed that when copying the post here. It doesn't apply to this thread. Please, everyone who was offended by this remark, accept my apology.
Yeah, that would be me, and you know what, lad?
I put in hours per week in adventure prep, from selecting/editing sound effects and music, to making up the battlemaps in Photoshop, to selecting images that will convey a scene/monster best, to making handouts, to going over monsters and encounters beforehand with cue cards and such to make sure I have a grasp on all the abilities etc that will come into play....
So, when it comes time to having to spend even more time to prep an adventure that I am paying money for, it might surprise you to find that (much like those who don't want to have to come up with the material on their own, because after all, that's what they're buying a pre-made module for {which, I do fully appreciate by the way}) I'm not a huge fan....
Is it my choice to spend so much time giving my players bang for the buck in the aforementioned fashion (note BTW that I'm not somehow implying that you don't)? Yup, and it's also my choice and preference to have every single last bit of material (barring core books, which I was unaware the Bestiary 2 and AGP had become....not a decision I agree with naturally enough) present in the module so that I can spend the time prepping in a way that my players (and myself of course!) find enjoyable and can play the adventure as is without a lot of extraneous referencing.
I know bloody well that preparing an adventure is work, so kindly don't work from the assumption that I don't, okay? Just because our own personal preferences in terms of how we spend our prep-time don't match up, doesn't mean I don't put in a lot of work, right? Right.
Cheers,
Colin
I would also like to thank the posters from the opposite end of the argument that have helped me clarify what I mean when I talk about "new" material. Indeed, I meant it to mean anything beyond the core rule book and first bestiary, i.e "new" in a chronological sense, rather than a "never before seen by human eyes" way.
Additionally, I would like to thank John Lynch 106 for reaching into my verbal diarrhea and extracting the idea that what is clearly at the root of some of my concerns is the addition of B2 and APG to the notion of "core". I appreciate you helping me get to the root of something which was implicity bugging me, but which I could not seem to make explicit.
As to the compromise...well, I don't like it necessarily, but if we can draw a line in the sand as it were and all agree that B2 and APG are added to the notion of core, but no further splat books and bestiaries will be, then it does seem like everyone is forced to give up something that they wanted in order to reach a middle ground (which is, after all, the nature of a compromise).
Cheers,
Colin
I like the idea of using all sorts of stuff in the APs. Perhaps there could be suggestions on replacements if you don't have the books?
(If you don't have Bestiary 2, use ___ from The Bestiary instead. If you don't have the Advanced Player's Guide, use the ___ feat from the Core Rulebook instead. Etc.)
Here's a strange idea:
The GMG and other Paizo sources have preached the gospel of stat-block re-use. Perhaps when they use a page reference to something that's considered "too new" or what have you, they could include a parenthetical notation of a Bestiary v1 statblock that would work pretty well in its place?
That's a suggestion in the spirit of compromise. Personally, I hope Paizo will just continue with their existing standards for class inclusion (use sparingly), and all monsters are fair game. Monsters are fair game because as a GM I am quite capable of "faking" a statblock like I mentioned above, and although a parenthetical suggestion for an ideal fake would be nice, I don't require such a thing.
I do agree that that would be something nice to do and I really like the idea (as long as the stretch isn't too much of course.....for example, I'm trying hard to think of something offhand from the first Bestiary that fits a twisted, Machiavellian otherworldly manipulator/sinister merchant quite as well as a Denizen of Leng, you know what I mean? An efreet with the fiendish template? I dunno, food for thought)!
Which does of course lead into my typical re-affirmation of some of the arguments being discussed from the "other side"; of course the B2 material should be included if it fits well with the adventure's theme (especially some of the Lovecraftian goodness! :) :)), it's just that (quite obviously) I really would prefer to see it all reprinted within the body of the adventure, so I'm not lugging around a metric arse-load of books (1.25 times bigger than an imperial arse-load for those who are curious) or computer printouts to the game.
But, as I said up above, if B2 and APG are where we can agree to draw the line of inclusion, then as long as it's all up on the SRD, I can certainly live with that, as long as everyone else can as well.
Cheers,
Colin
But, as I said up above, if B2 and APG are where we can agree to draw the line of inclusion, then as long as it's all up on the SRD, I can certainly live with that, as long as everyone else can as well.
As could I. APG + Bestiary 2 seems like a good compromise.
But in the end all that matters is what Paizo agrees to do, and as of yet they seem unwilling to commit to any specific constraint on AP resources. I believe they are of the opinion that a play-it-by-ear approach is best. I disagree, instead believing that time (and bloat) will underscore the problems with that approach. Time will tell. :)
In the meantime, I'll keep buying APs. But if the day rolls around that I need all of the above, plus Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Bestiary 3, Bestiary 4, and Ultimate Wombat to use an AP, then I'll be (regretfully) done, open content or no. Not out of spite, but simply because the AP product simply won't be of any use to me. The day I can't fit all the rules I need to run an AP into a modest duffel bag is the day I switch to Savage Worlds. :P
|
|
But, as I said up above, if B2 and APG are where we can agree to draw the line of inclusion, then as long as it's all up on the SRD, I can certainly live with that, as long as everyone else can as well.As could I. APG + Bestiary 2 seems like a good compromise.
But in the end all that matters is what Paizo agrees to do, and as of yet they seem unwilling to commit to any specific constraint on AP resources. I believe they are of the opinion that a play-it-by-ear approach is best. I disagree, instead believing that time (and bloat) will underscore the problems with that approach. Time will tell. :)
In the meantime, I'll keep buying APs. But if the day rolls around that I need all of the above, plus Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Bestiary 3, Bestiary 4, and Ultimate Wombat to use an AP, then I'll be (regretfully) done, open content or no. Not out of spite, but simply because the AP product simply won't be of any use to me. The day I can't fit all the rules I need to run an AP into a modest duffel bag is the day I switch to Savage Worlds. :P
Eh, get a tablet, ya cheapskate. ;-)
Eh, get a tablet, ya cheapskate. ;-)
:D
I actually have an iPad (actually the gf does; close enough). However, it isn't quite there yet (for me). The main problem is speed -- it just can't handle Paizo's bigger PDFs quickly enough to be practical. But who knows? I know the iPad 2 is a good deal faster. That day is certainly coming.
Eh, get a tablet, ya cheapskate. ;-)But, as I said up above, if B2 and APG are where we can agree to draw the line of inclusion, then as long as it's all up on the SRD, I can certainly live with that, as long as everyone else can as well.As could I. APG + Bestiary 2 seems like a good compromise.
But in the end all that matters is what Paizo agrees to do, and as of yet they seem unwilling to commit to any specific constraint on AP resources. I believe they are of the opinion that a play-it-by-ear approach is best. I disagree, instead believing that time (and bloat) will underscore the problems with that approach. Time will tell. :)
In the meantime, I'll keep buying APs. But if the day rolls around that I need all of the above, plus Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Bestiary 3, Bestiary 4, and Ultimate Wombat to use an AP, then I'll be (regretfully) done, open content or no. Not out of spite, but simply because the AP product simply won't be of any use to me. The day I can't fit all the rules I need to run an AP into a modest duffel bag is the day I switch to Savage Worlds. :P
Heh, in all seriousness that's exactly what I did. I picked up the iPad 2 few weeks ago and using Goodreader I loaded a fair amount of my paizo stuff on it and ran this past session of Curse of the Crimson Throne using my notes (via Pages) and Goodreader.
It was a revelation actually.
It also meant I wanst lugging a bunch of heavy books with me to my session....
Heh, in all seriousness that's exactly what I did. I picked up the iPad 2 few weeks ago and using Goodreader I loaded a fair amount of my paizo stuff on it and ran this past session of Curse of the Crimson Throne using my notes (via Pages) and Goodreader.
It was a revelation actually.
It also meant I wanst lugging a bunch of heavy books with me to my session....
Had you ever tried an iPad 1? If so, can you compare them performance-wise?
I'm curious how much of a difference the iPad's 2's dual-core processor, faster graphics, and doubled RAM actually make in PDF rendering. Unfortunately, iPad 2s seem as rare as hen's teeth...
Heh, in all seriousness that's exactly what I did. I picked up the iPad 2 few weeks ago and using Goodreader I loaded a fair amount of my paizo stuff on it and ran this past session of Curse of the Crimson Throne using my notes (via Pages) and Goodreader.
It was a revelation actually.
It also meant I wanst lugging a bunch of heavy books with me to my session....
Had you ever tried an iPad 1? If so, can you compare them performance-wise?
I'm curious how much of a difference the iPad's 2's dual-core processor, faster graphics, and doubled RAM actually make in PDF rendering. Unfortunately, iPad 2s seem as rare as hen's teeth...
iPad2 looking at the ISWG (the most image heavy and biggest PDF I could find) finishes rendering a page in about 2 seconds (it stops being blurry). The page is visible when you flip the page.
iPad2 looking at the ISWG (the most image heavy and biggest PDF I could find) finishes rendering a page in about 2 seconds (it stops being blurry). The page is visible when you flip the page.
WOW...that's quite an improvement. On my iPad 1, the Core Rulebook usually displays a blank white page for upwards of five seconds, with another five seconds (or so) of displaying a low resolution placeholder until the final page is rendered. I was a little afraid to try the ISWG, as I heard it was ever heavier.
iPad2 looking at the ISWG (the most image heavy and biggest PDF I could find) finishes rendering a page in about 2 seconds (it stops being blurry). The page is visible when you flip the page.WOW...that's quite an improvement. On my iPad 1, the Core Rulebook usually displays a blank white page for upwards of five seconds, with another five seconds (or so) of displaying a low resolution placeholder until the final page is rendered. I was a little afraid to try the ISWG, as I heard it was ever heavier.
I will time it when I get home, but you can almost flip through the book at real speed.
iPad2 looking at the ISWG (the most image heavy and biggest PDF I could find) finishes rendering a page in about 2 seconds (it stops being blurry). The page is visible when you flip the page.WOW...that's quite an improvement. On my iPad 1, the Core Rulebook usually displays a blank white page for upwards of five seconds, with another five seconds (or so) of displaying a low resolution placeholder until the final page is rendered. I was a little afraid to try the ISWG, as I heard it was ever heavier.
It takes about 3 seconds to go from fuzzy to clear. And if you get to the end of the load it takes 5 seconds to go from white screen to clear page. This is in iBooks.
So what about for Jade Regent? We know that a lot of the rules for martial arts, ninjas,samurai, etc are in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. Do we want them to reprint all of those rules? Thoughts?
So what about for Jade Regent? We know that a lot of the rules for martial arts, ninjas,samurai, etc are in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. Do we want them to reprint all of those rules? Thoughts?
Well, for myself, I would like the rules reprinted....again, how many books are going to be "core" and an assumed purchase? It starts to become problematic, especially for new players/GMs.
Put it another way, how's that Bestiary 2 section of the SRD coming along, eh?
You simply cannot expect (well, you can expect it, but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation) that a player/GM owns every single splat book in order to get the most out of an Adventure Path....does everyone really want Pathfinder to be known as the game that you need five or six books and/or an internet connection to play in (if you want to best use the APs, the flagship product for Paizo)?
But then my thoughts on the matter were perhaps startlingly predictable, yeah? ;-)
Cheers,
Colin
P.S. In case it somehow didn't go without saying, the above is IMO and YMMV :) :)
Creative Director
|
Now that Carrion Crown is coming out... I'm more eager than ever to see how folks react to how we're handling this problem in print, rather than guessing how we'll handle it.
(As for Bestiary 2 on the PRD... that's going frustratingly and agonizingly slow. It's kinda out of my hands, although I'll keep waving them around to try to spur that project on as best I can.)
I've heard folks worry about how this will look in 3 or 6 or more years—with us expecting GMs to have a giant stack of rulebooks on hand at all times. I really don't think this'll be the case, honestly, since we don't PLAN to make a giant stack of player option rulebooks. Three a year is a much less aggressive publishing rate than WotC, so comparisons there are skewed. Furthermore, and I know it seems like every one of the hardcovers we do are basic player character rules expansions... that's because we're getting those ones in print first so we CAN support them.
There are plenty of other hardcover topics I'm eager to cover, from the oft-requested books on epic level, monster PCs, and psionics, to other books like rulebooks on kingdom building, mass combat, nautical adventuring, and even on to some really fringe things like steampunk rules or the like.
Now... I should note that we aren't yet working on ANY of these books—we're focusing for now on Ultimate Combat and 2011's releases.
But beyond that, I really strongly suspect we'll be getting more and more niche and specialized in our rulebook line, which means that unless we happen to publish an adventure specifically for that niche, those rulebooks will be TRULY optional. I don't expect much from a nautical rules hardcover or a mass combat hardcover to seep into a typical Adventure Path, for example.
And as for monster books... I don't think 2 monster books is too much to have on hand. I actually don't think THREE is too much—the game's always had 3, it seems (two Monster Manuals and the Fiend Folio). Beyond 3 monster books... maybe that's starting to get too much or maybe not. But regardless of how many monster books we print, we'll ALWAYS be skewing toward the ones with lower numbers, simply because the monsters in the lower numbered bestiaries are more common in Golarion. That's why we put the monsters we put into Bestiary 1. If they had to wait until Bestiary 2, they're not as common. And if they're not yet in either, they're even less common.
My personal philosophy that I'm trying to impress on all of our designers and developers and freelancers, by the way, is this: If you want to use something from beyond the Core Rulebook or Bestiary 1 or Bestiary 2... justify it with awesome writing or the plot. Don't use a witch when a bard or wizard or sorcerer will do. Partially because we want the base classes beyond the core to be less common, and partially because I DO want to try to moderate how many extra books or pages of printouts from a PRD or other online resource you need to haul to the game.
And of course, we're in a transition period between print and electronic. Tablet technology is growing by leaps and bounds—who knows how affordable and all over the place things like iPads will be even next year?
|
Creative Director
|
So what about for Jade Regent? We know that a lot of the rules for martial arts, ninjas,samurai, etc are in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. Do we want them to reprint all of those rules? Thoughts?
Jade Regent is going to be relatively tricky, it's true. But as we do with ALL NPCs, we'll be printing full stat blocks for ninjas, samurai, martial artists, and all that. We won't be doing somthing like this:
Ultimate Combat
hp 98
We'll print that dude's entire stat block, which in theory, should be enough for even someone who's never even HEARD of Ultimate Combat to use the encounter, if perhaps with a little bit of GM hand waving or ad-hoc ruling.
So what about for Jade Regent? We know that a lot of the rules for martial arts, ninjas,samurai, etc are in Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. Do we want them to reprint all of those rules? Thoughts?
What I want is for them to avoid including in an AP volume the rules you describe altogether, though I admit that appears unlikely. I fundamentally reject the idea that Paizo can't do a high-quality AP set in Tian Xia using the core rulebook and the APG (or even just the core rulebook). In particular, I perceive the samurai and ninja as classes to be particularly egregious examples of rules bloat. The differences between a samurai and a fighter are 100% cultural -- why on earth would we need mechanics for them? I understand others want them, but if I had my way they'd be confined to Ultimate Combat.
When you say need those books to run an AP do you mean an entire AP or a specific adventure in an AP?
I'd like to suggest perhaps they go with a given adventure wont use more than 2 (or 3) additional books beyond the core 2 (Core and Bestiary). And these books would be listed at the begining of the book (which I think they are now in CC).
Would that be an acceptable route?
Absolutely not. If I understand you correctly, those 2 or 3 books could be different for every volume, resulting in up to 18 additional resources needed to run a single path. In fact, that would be enough to get me to drop my subscription.
Also, I would totally get Ultimate Wombat.
Sorry, pre-orders are closed. :P
Now that Carrion Crown is coming out... I'm more eager than ever to see how folks react to how we're handling this problem in print, rather than guessing how we'll handle it.
(As for Bestiary 2 on the PRD... that's going frustratingly and agonizingly slow. It's kinda out of my hands, although I'll keep waving them around to try to spur that project on as best I can.)
I've heard folks worry about how this will look in 3 or 6 or more years—with us expecting GMs to have a giant stack of rulebooks on hand at all times. I really don't think this'll be the case, honestly, since we don't PLAN to make a giant stack of player option rulebooks. Three a year is a much less aggressive publishing rate than WotC, so comparisons there are skewed. Furthermore, and I know it seems like every one of the hardcovers we do are basic player character rules expansions... that's because we're getting those ones in print first so we CAN support them.
There are plenty of other hardcover topics I'm eager to cover, from the oft-requested books on epic level, monster PCs, and psionics, to other books like rulebooks on kingdom building, mass combat, nautical adventuring, and even on to some really fringe things like steampunk rules or the like.
Now... I should note that we aren't yet working on ANY of these books—we're focusing for now on Ultimate Combat and 2011's releases.
But beyond that, I really strongly suspect we'll be getting more and more niche and specialized in our rulebook line, which means that unless we happen to publish an adventure specifically for that niche, those rulebooks will be TRULY optional. I don't expect much from a nautical rules hardcover or a mass combat hardcover to seep into a typical Adventure Path, for example.
And as for monster books... I don't think 2 monster books is too much to have on hand. I actually don't think THREE is too much—the game's always had 3, it seems (two Monster Manuals and the Fiend Folio). Beyond 3 monster books... maybe that's starting to get too much or maybe not. But regardless of how many monster books we print, we'll ALWAYS be skewing toward the ones with lower numbers, simply because the monsters in the lower numbered bestiaries are more common in Golarion. That's why we put the monsters we put into Bestiary 1. If they had to wait until Bestiary 2, they're not as common. And if they're not yet in either, they're even less common.
My personal philosophy that I'm trying to impress on all of our designers and developers and freelancers, by the way, is this: If you want to use something from beyond the Core Rulebook or Bestiary 1 or Bestiary 2... justify it with awesome writing or the plot. Don't use a witch when a bard or wizard or sorcerer will do. Partially because we want the base classes beyond the core to be less common, and partially because I DO want to try to moderate how many extra books or pages of printouts from a PRD or other online resource you need to haul to the game.
And of course, we're in a transition period between print and electronic. Tablet technology is growing by leaps and bounds—who knows how affordable and all over the place things like iPads will be even next year?
My own personal view is that Paizo has been doing a very good job of keeping the bloat down. This may be biased -- heck, it IS biased -- but I would be a lot less keen about assuming players will have the APG if that book wasn't so damned great. I have yet to show the book to any of my players without having them immediately go out and buy it. Quality like that sort of makes it de facto core -- I mean, if the vast majority of tables have it, I don't see the problem with Paizo assuming the majority of tables have it. YMMV, of course, but so far I have no beef.
ETA: James, when does Ultimate Wombat come out?
|
ETA: James, when does Ultimate Wombat come out?
Not until after Ultimate Badger, Ultimate Horse, and Ultimate Hippogriff are out.
And all of those ain't going nowhere until we get Ultimate Deinonychus and Ultimate Tyrannosaurus off to the printer.
I can bet my hind legs that Ultimate Hippogriff will slip off the scheudule/get cancelled/ship with books gonna sink on the way from China...
Not until after Ultimate Badger, Ultimate Horse, and Ultimate Hippogriff are out.
And all of those ain't going nowhere until we get Ultimate Deinonychus and Ultimate Tyrannosaurus off to the printer.
The sad thing? I have at least three players who would buy Ultimate Horse in a heartbeat.
The sad thing? I have at least three players who would buy Ultimate Horse in a heartbeat.Not until after Ultimate Badger, Ultimate Horse, and Ultimate Hippogriff are out.
And all of those ain't going nowhere until we get Ultimate Deinonychus and Ultimate Tyrannosaurus off to the printer.
I'm holding out for Ultimate Sharkodactyl.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Cool; I'm happy to have been irritable and not reading Charles's message in the best light....I fully concede that I may very well have been going off half-cocked :)
Cheers,
Colin
Colin,
No problem and I appreciate your response. I took a few days off from reading this thread so I wouldn't get too emotionally involved. I can understand the emotions involved in this topic on both sides of the issue!
All of us want the best Paizo product but have different ideas of what "best" is. Getting to the best will have to happen through compromise and that is a challenge. I'm glad Paizo gets paid to make those choices and not me because making everyone completely happy just isn't possible. They do seem to try hard to make everyone happy with a compromise solution, however.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Clearly you and Charles can't be catered to by the same product (this isn't a snark. Just a neutral statement of fact). It is up to Paizo to determine which customer represents the larger population and which population will given them more money in total.You might be right (although I hope not) but the galling thing for me is that for all the previous APs this was not the case, so it is unfortunate that a product which we had both enjoyed must now lose/make unhappy a certain portion of its previously very, very happy reader base.
And here is a challenge for Paizo. I bought APs 1-4 but nothing else until Carrion Crown. I played 3rd edition for nearly a decade and was frankly burned out. The APG stirred my interest with the alchemist and witch and cavalier bringing both new ideas and found memories of AD&D 1E back. Carrion Crown seemed like a mix of new and old rather than more of the same.
Seeing new content in Carrion Crown coupled with traditional horror convinced me to give Carrion Crown a try. If the prison had been yet more skeletons and zombies I'd have been disappointed. But haunts were great, they were something new. The fact that I got even more use out of my GMG was an extra bonus. And Carrion Crown also enhanced my purchase of the GMG because I can use the new haunts in it in other campaigns (in the same way new constructs enchanced the value of my Bestiary 1).
The modules do the same thing for me. Getting to use my Harrow deck even more (the locations are really interesting) got me to start buying modules. I want an adventure with those locations in it and I don't have time to make it myself. So Paizo gets my money for modules now too.
I don't think they want to make every module in this way. That doesn't work and I wouldn't think that would be a good compromise. But a few modules that incorporate something new will keep my interest while more traditional modules can also help those who still enjoy playing 3.5. Seems like a fair compromise to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
'good clarification of my thoughts'...If using Bestiary 2 monsters is more appropriate to the flavour of the adventure Charles would rather see them used without...
John,
Thanks for clarifying my points. I agree with your clarifications. I'd put myself in a time out so I wouldn't get heated and wasn't available to respond.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
A question for everyone who is saying "yes, pile on the content into the APs":
If there was an alternate rules system (such as the "Words of Power" expansion that was playtested for Ultimate Magic, or a hypothetical "martial arts system" from Ultimate Combat), would you want that to show up in your AP?
Put another way: if it were OGL, would you prefer to have Magic of Incarnum and Truespeakers in your AP? How many of you would roll your eyes and say "I don't want to look up any lexicons of the perfected map, I never bothered learning those" vs how many would be excited to see this content supported?
If the rules enhance the AP then yes, pile the rules on. If the rules are added to sell splatbooks than hell no. I'd love to see a gunslinger in an AP if Paizo ever risked a story that required one. Or words of power to represent some out there story.
I don't think doing really out there stories that require out there rules all the time would be smart. But every once in a while? If the rules are needed for the stories, then yes, please use them. Why should Paizo write them if they don't even have the option to use them in their own APs?
Also, in no way do I ever think the Paizo I know would add rules from new books (I don't consider Paizo books as splatbooks myself) to an AP or module just to try to sell those rulebooks. That isn't the way they operate or have ever operated. If the rulebooks aren't good enough to sell on their own, I don't see Paizo trying to peddle them in some other devious way.
I think Paizo just likes to use new stuff like I do, and heck I didn't write the stuff. If I was Paizo I'd be dying to use my new ideas in an AP. I admire their current restraint in not going overboard. The story/plot always comes first to Paizo in my opinion based on what I've read.
ETA: James, when does Ultimate Wombat come out?
Not until after Ultimate Badger, Ultimate Horse, and Ultimate Hippogriff are out.
And all of those ain't going nowhere until we get Ultimate Deinonychus and Ultimate Tyrannosaurus off to the printer.
NB Badger and Hippogriff. We had to wait, so we're being rewarded. Suck it up, haters.